Raghubir v Nicolopoulos

The appeal before the Court involved Raghubir and others (the appellants) against Nicolopoulos and others (the respondents). The appellants sought to sue the respondents for defamation, alleging that certain publications made within New South Wales were defamatory. The first respondent was a resident of New South Wales, while the other respondents were incorporated bodies pursuant to the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW). The primary question before the Court was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the appellants’ claim, specifically whether service within Australia but outside the Australian Capital Territory was sufficient to enliven jurisdiction for in personam actions.

The central legal issue was whether the Federal Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim, given that the alleged defamatory publications were made within New South Wales and the first respondent was a resident of that state. The appellants argued that the Federal Court had jurisdiction under section 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which confers original jurisdiction on the Federal Court. The respondents contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not served the first respondent within the Australian Capital Territory, as required by section 32(1) of the Judiciary Act. The Court needed to determine whether the exceptions under section 39B(2) of the Judiciary Act applied to allow service outside the Australian Capital Territory.

The Court held that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appellants’ defamation claim. The Court found that the exceptions under section 39B(2) of the Judiciary Act did not apply, as the alleged defamatory publications were made within New South Wales, and the first respondent was a resident of that state. The Court concluded that service within Australia but outside the Australian Capital Territory was not sufficient to enliven the Court's jurisdiction for in personam actions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.